Dr. O'Hanlon and his wife, Theresa, will attend the dinner in Farmleigh this evening.
From the 12th to the 20th century this castle was the seat of power in Ireland. Whoever held this place by force of arms held power over Dublin and most of the eastern part of the island - the area called the Pale. The Pale was also the name given to the long wall of timber and mud which enclosed the lands around Dublin and divided the island into two parts. To be outside the Pale was seen by those inside as being outside civilisation and the law. There is still a bit of that attitude around even at this stage. Of course, that depended on one's perspective. There was an ancient civilisation outside with its own laws and customs but it was not recognised by the society that lived within.
That is enough about our ancient history for today. Now we are looking forward to 1 May 2004, when we welcome the ten acceding countries into the European Union. Ireland is proud to hold the Presidency of the Union at such an historic time. Those ten nations are represented here today - Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta and Cyprus, and the candidates, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. We should give them a round of applause as our own welcome for 1 May, which is only a month away.
This will be the greatest enlargement to date and will be followed by more acceding states in the not too distant future. When the European Community was being conceived in the early 1950s the political landscape of the day was such that its founders could scarcely have imagined this current enlargement. There was a wall then too, but it was across Europe. Thankfully that wall has now gone. The European Union cannot claim sole or even the main credit for its collapse but we have been the main beneficiaries of its removal.
Ireland joined the then European Economic Community in 1973, and our national life at all levels has been greatly enriched by the experience. Many books and papers have been written on the subject of Ireland's economic success since then, and I do not propose to go into that subject now because it would obviously take a much longer conference, but I draw attention to a less commented on aspect of Ireland's experience. One of the intangible benefits that we received from membership was a revitalised sense of national self-confidence. This was not based upon military power or economic prowess but on our being accepted and welcomed as equals around the European table and a dawning recognition that our culture is attractive and has something to offer to people outside this island.
Our participation in the Union allowed cultural benefits to flow both ways as we learnt from our European colleagues and they learnt from us. The realisation that we were not just supplicants at the European table was a very positive thing for Irish culture and for our confidence. The ten new acceding countries also bring with them ten different ways of looking at the world and different languages, cultures and historical experiences. They join the Union with the rightful expectation that membership will, over time, confer substantial economic benefits, and they are entitled to the supports from which earlier entrants, including Ireland, benefited to allow their economies to catch up.
However, it would be a serious mistake for current members to think that the benefits will flow in one direction only - towards the applicants. I am certain that this enlargement will also enrich the Union in many unexpected ways, with new ideas and new diversity, and in many ways that are not yet obvious to us. Enlargement will also bring the European Union closer to some of the problems facing the world today, including ethnic tensions in the Balkans, civil conflict in the Caucasus, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and issues such as illegal immigration and trafficking in people and drugs which will all have to be faced together.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of particular and immediate concern. Events there have entered a downward spiral, which seems to have developed its own inexorable momentum. This conflict is poisoning the West's relations with the Arab and Muslim world. It is breeding terrorism and injustice and destroying respect for the rule of law, democracy and proper judicial procedures. The West is seen by many to turn a blind eye to Israeli failures to honour the commitments required of it in various UN resolutions while other states are held fully to account. This is undermining support for the UN-based system of international security. This conflict, and the war in Iraq, have also driven a wedge between the US and the EU and distracted them from what should be common efforts to combat terrorism.
Delegates will have seen the agenda for our meeting, and I hope it contains subjects of interest to everybody and provokes lively debate. We will start with a session on the EU's policies towards its new neighbours. I know that many of the delegations here have great expertise on the subject. With the present enlargement and the prospect of three more states, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, joining in the near future, the Union's borders will move eastward and southward.
Relations with the remaining partner countries in the Barcelona process, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, the Balkan states, Moldova and Belarus, will take on an even greater importance. The Barcelona process includes 12 non-EU members, and of these Malta and Cyprus will join the EU on 1 May and Turkey will receive an indication in December 2004 on whether and when the Union is ready to start accession negotiations. The nine other states are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
It would be appropriate to have a debate today on the EU's relations with these countries on our new borders. During the past year I have had the privilege of meeting with many of my counterparts in the acceding countries, and I was constantly struck by how much they know about the countries to the east and south of the Union. Indeed many of the delegations here will have an extensive knowledge of and detailed experience in dealing with these countries, gained through their shared histories and proximity. I know they have very well thought out views on how we should advance relations with these neighbouring states and on what steps are needed next to develop relations with them. I look forward to hearing these views.
In the afternoon we will continue with a discussion on the prospects for stability and development in Africa. The African continent has been conspicuous for many years for the stream of bad news that comes from there. Large parts of it are blighted by war, famine and disease, among which the biggest killers are HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Africa has not shared in the wealth creation brought about by globalisation. In many African countries GDP per capita is lower now than when independence was gained some 40 years ago. While other developing countries in Asia and Latin America suffer economic and political crises from time to time, the overall trend is undeniably upwards. The Irish Presidency of the Union has listed Africa as one of our main foreign policy priorities. It is vital that we keep Africa on the agenda at the highest level and I am confident that you share this view.
The question I ask today is what we, as parliamentarians, can do to help Africa. I would like to suggest a few areas where we can make a difference. First, we can make sure that our Governments honour the commitments they have already made. We are all committed by the millennium development goals to do all we can to eradicate poverty, promote human dignity and achieve peace, democracy and environmental sustainability. The financial commitments we agreed at Monterrey in 2002 must be honoured. We can also put pressure on other donor Governments who have made the same pledges to honour their commitments.
Many of our Governments have also made commitments to achieve the UN objective of spending 0.7% of GDP per annum on overseas development aid. Ireland's Government has committed itself to reaching and sustaining this target by 2007. We reached a level of 0.41 % in 2003. My committee will be making sure there is no slippage in this commitment and that substantial progress is made annually towards this goal. Your committees can also pressurise your Governments to ensure that they make progress towards the UN target. Of course the EU has set an interim target of 0.39%.
Second, we can make sure that moneys allocated from the EU budget to development aid are spent and that if they are not spent within the timeframe allocated, they are retained for development aid and not absorbed back into the EU budget. Any new priorities we decide on such as the fight against terrorism must not be allowed to divert moneys from development aid. New priorities must be funded with new moneys.
Third, we can support the efforts being made by African countries to fight poverty and to transform their institutions to allow for economic growth. The New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD, is a hopeful sign that the African leaders are serious about their desire to end poverty and to reform their own institutions. NEPAD recognises that not only the donors but also the African countries have duties and responsibilities. There is a new focus on good governance and institutional and civil reform, which are essential preconditions of sustainable development. While it is too early to say whether it will be a success, we should support it and give it every chance to succeed.
Fourth, we should redouble our efforts to meet the concerns of the developing world in the WTO post-Cancún talks. We should support their efforts to enter the global trading system and must do more to ensure that our trade and agricultural policies do not harm producers and markets in the developing world. The UNCTAD conference in Saõ Paulo next June will give us an opportunity to hear the concerns of the developing world. This is not an easy issue to resolve but we must begin the process.
Fifth, we can prioritise the fight against AIDS/HIV. This disease is now the greatest obstacle to development in Africa. More resources must be devoted to fighting its spread. The global fund to counteract HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria must be supported. Low cost sustained and affordable treatment, including generic drugs, must be made available to fight the pandemic.
Sixth, we must work together to improve the coherence of our development policies, increase efficiencies and eliminate duplication. These are just a few ideas which, if implemented, will make a significant difference to the lives of millions of people in Africa and would contribute to a safer, more secure and more just world.
This afternoon we will hear a presentation from Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, on Ireland's EU Presidency priorities. I will leave the details of this dossier to my colleague, Deputy Roche, but I know that uppermost in your minds will be the prospects for an agreement on the final form of a European constitution. The Italian Presidency worked tirelessly towards this goal and left us with a solid basis with which to continue this work. We applaud their work and say that if a solution is now achieved, it is built on the work that went before and on the spirit of compromise that has prevailed during these negotiations.
There is growing optimism that a deal may be possible over the next few weeks. This afternoon the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, will give you the latest details on the negotiations. I want to say a few words on why it is imperative that we reach agreement soon. The political reality is that we have a narrow window in which to work. If we do not reach agreement by mid-June, as agreed last week in Lisbon, then the reality is that the European political system will be preoccupied with the aftermath of elections to the European Parliament and with the appointment of a new Commission. Enlargement will also impose its own responsibilities as we seek to gain experience in how to work effectively together as a college of 25 states.
Following the elections and the summer break the EU will begin the serious negotiations on a new financial perspective for the Union. This will determine the distribution of the financial burden and the financial priorities of the Union for the next six years. It is always a protracted negotiation and this year will be no different. It is also the nature of such negotiations that linkages may be made with positions taken on the constitution if we have not got through it by that stage.
Other domestic and international priorities are likely to exercise the attentions of our Governments towards the end of the year. In short, the momentum will be lost and it will be difficult or impossible to return the issue to the centre of the agenda. The people of Europe deserve better. The constitution will be nobody's perfect document; that is the nature of a negotiated compromise, but crucially it will provide an agreed basis for the further development of the Union and for explaining the Union to its citizens. Great efforts have been made thus far and a great spirit of compromise has been shown by all delegations. Because of the goodwill, I am hopeful that the finishing line is now in sight. We will hear more about that this evening from the Minister of State, Deputy Roche.
At 5 o'clock this afternoon I will have the pleasure of welcoming the Taoiseach to this meeting when he will address us and give further insight into the negotiations on the constitution.
I am delighted that tomorrow morning we will hear the views of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, on progress towards the goals set out in the Lisbon Agenda. You will be aware that much of last week's Spring European Council of Heads of State and Government was devoted to this subject. We have an excellent panel for that debate tomorrow morning. It is made up of people who are deeply involved and whose views will be particularly interesting.
The Lisbon Agenda is the kind of background work which, although vitally important to the lives of every citizen because it will impact directly on their standard of living, often excites little positive media or public interest, except perhaps to question its ambition and direction. It is a hugely ambitious project spread over a ten-year timeframe. Its goal is nothing less than the transformation of the way that our educational, research, social and business systems are organised in order to deliver a better quality of life to our citizens and to improve Europe's competitiveness in an increasingly competitive and globalised world. While some countries within our membership are doing very well, on average we must rise to the level at which the United States is operating. That is one of the main challenges in the global market.
If the Lisbon Agenda is a success, no doubt its success will be attributed by many commentators to other factors. If we fail, then blame will be laid squarely with our governments. In the world in which we live, however, it is unthinkable that we should not set these objectives for ourselves. Europe can and will find a way to organise and to compete with best practice worldwide, while still maintaining our aspiration to deliver a decent quality of life for every citizen. I am sure that the Tánaiste's contribution tomorrow will provide a fascinating insight into how we are performing and on what we still need to do to achieve the goals set by Lisbon. That debate will conclude the business of the meeting. I expect that we should be able to finish by mid-day tomorrow.
I am conscious that our time is limited and that there are 28 delegations here, all of whom will wish to contribute to the debates at some point. If we could keep contributions in the other sessions to three minutes, then that would be helpful. I suspect that without strict discipline, managing speaking time in the newly enlarged Union may become one of the Presidency's most onerous and thankless tasks. Without further ado and to set a good example, I will conclude my opening address.
